MickyB

I find it impossible to avoid these mistakes online, even if I'm taking the game fairly seriously. Don't know why - guess I'm distracted by simple things like checking my email...plus it feels less acceptable to think for a while when playing online.

Agree with awm, particularly on still using xfers over a weak no-trump. While xfers may make it easier for your LHO to bid, weak take-outs make it easier for your RHO to get involved.

I'd be tempted to bid 2♥ even if 2♦ promised four. +140 beats +130 :P If this hand isn't a diamond raise, I want to change the system and the scoring!

No, pass would be non-forcing...we haven't promised values yet, we would have had no need to bid on a 4333 three-count. 2♠ over 2♣ does sound like a better hand than this, though.

Yup, reasonable auction. On a good day, oppo will protect with 2♠...it is love all at MPs after all.

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=st6432h764da54c85]133|100|Scoring: IMP Pass-(1NT)-X-(XX) 1NT is 12-14, dbl is penalties, XX shows a 5+card suit and asks partner to bid 2♣. Do you pass or bid 2♠, which would show a very weak hand? If you pass, and it continues 2♣-P-P back to you, do you pass, bid 2♠ or double for takeout?[/hv]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=saxxxhqxxxxdxxxcx&s=skqj9xxxxhakdacxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP (3♣)-4♠-(5♣)-5♠-AP. What do you think of the three calls made by NS? Do you play that a pass by North would be forcing?[/hv]

Agreed, except I'd much rather that daybreak was at midday.

Any suggestions for another name for this, Richard? I suspect that the term "Denial Cues" was applied to this method before it was used as another term for spiral scanning in a relay structure. I understand that the Sharples played a form of xfer denial cues, i.e. 4♠-P-5♣ denied a control in diamonds, any ideas if they had a name for it? I've been messing about slightly with this concept already, unfortunately it's a fair way down my list of priorities. Seem to remember that there are times when it has problems due to having nothing to deny a control in.

Why? Spades can outcompete hearts and diamonds, clubs cannot. Maybe I don't understand acol, does 1C deny spades or something? This is a major point because it is the main reason I think it's important to bid 1S. No, but if you have a 4-4 spade fit you will have a 5-5 club fit.

It's just a compromise between 4cM and 5cM, IMO, nothing particularly special about it. Acol Strong NT used to use a prepared club, but that was back when people thought they had to 2/1 on eight-counts. If your objective is to keep the bidding low, don't play four-card majors.

Pass and 2♥ look obvious on the first two. Double could easily be right on the third, but I guess I should pass.

Once you've realised the possibility that there might not be a test, all days become possible again.

Edited: Oh, there's a poll.

On this hand it was very right to pull, pard held void AKT AJxxx Axxxx So 4♠ is one off against 6♦ making. Is 4NT a serious alternative to X with these suits?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sxxhxxxdqtxxxxckx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 4♠-X-P-to you. Pass or pull?[/hv]

Huh I must have explained this very badly because I agree 100% with Josh. You didn't state that it implies club weakness. A few months back, a partner bid 3♠ with AJxxx and KQx in the unbid suits because 3♠ is "natural", I presume you would not?

Not sure if it makes sense, but in the software business one says, software is the way it is, because of historic reasons. Does it make sense, that there are 4 soccer teams from Great Britain in the competition? - England - Wales - Scotland - North Ireland And two from Denmark? - Denmark - Faroer Isles (hopefully I spelled them right and hopefully the Faroer Isles belong to Denmark) With kind regards Marlowe This is equivalent to there being one team from the South of USA and another from the North.

Lol, you'd love the spanish press version of this one: Hamilton refused to follow the team's orders to let Alonso go ahead for qualify, and then the team ordered Alonso to stop at the pit lane. All the blam to Hamilton as you can see :rolleyes: Lol. Nice. In the UK Alonso has come across as a bad loser, perhaps understandable given the circumstances. Hamilton's claim that people were out to get him (made when it appeared likely he'd be penalised for erratic driving behind the safety car) came across pretty badly too.

seven-six-four. I bid 2♠ due to the conditions. Partner (over)bid 4♠ holding AQ98xx AKx 9x QJ, this was three off when trumps broke 4-0.

Does defending 2M rate to be better than declaring 1NT? Weak take-outs make it easier for the opps to compete than transfers do, basically both oppo are in protective position.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sxxxhtxdkjxxckxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP (1♦)-1♠-(1NT)-? If you bid 2♠, would you do so under other conditions?[/hv]

NS play a multi and three-level xfer preempts, I suspect one of those was opened on the North cards.

Interesting that Jack dominated the its group match vs Bridge Baron, 97-29 over 32 boards - greater than the margin in the 64 board semi.

It would be rather difficult to model the psychological issues, I think this would tend to increase the chances of a weaker team beating a stronger one.